Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above.
You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.
To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Yes, the mission was a disaster.
Yes, the President has to bear some responsibility.
Yes, his response looks and sounds terrible.

But his response only looks worse when compared to how Obama, W, Clinton, and H.W. handled (or avoided) their own mistakes because he lacks the polish that almost every professional politicians manages to develop before they get within sniffing distance of DC.

When Trump has trouble admitting his mistakes, it makes him look like a toddler because he's not polished. When Bill Clinton ducked and weaved around the definition of the word "is," we nodded in half-surrender like a Warriors fans watching LeBron track down Iguodala in the 2016 Finals. We knew we were watching political greatness.

The point isn't that Trump isn't wrong to refuse responsibility — it's that many (not you in particular, because I've seen you be fair and even-handed on many occasions) jump to bring the hammer down on him because he's his lack of polish makes his flaws incredibly obvious. The lack of polish usually serves him well with about half the country, since it solidifies his place outside the establishment. It just doesn't in regards to the botched mission.

@Jawbone
There is a second point I found troubling, and that is that the White House made the name of the fallen soldier public. I think this is quite distasteful, the grieving family should be afforded some privacy, and if they decide to step into the spotlight, it should be their decision to make.

Also, I think you mistake lack of polish with lack of character: you can be completely undiplomatic and, but still take responsibility for your actions. If anything, that's my association with a “straight shooter” who says it like it is but is a good guy at heart.

So, I've been ruminating on Mar-a-lago for a while, thinking about how Trump mixes the office with business by using his and other officials presence there as a selling point. It's probably legal, but what he's doing is pretty transparent and kind of sickening. Anyway, a congressman managed to mostly sum it up for me:

I guess what I'm asking here isn't whether you have any concerns – I assume you'd just point to the Clinton Foundation as if it makes things ok – so I guess my question is why shouldn't I be concerned?

Is there something to worry about other that it being sleazy? Honest question.

The Mar-o-lago situation is just one way in which Trump seems to seek financial gains from his Presidency. Regarding worries, do you remember the photo posted by a club member of the poor sod who carries (probably carried, past tense) the nuclear football? And the sensitive negotiations in full view of other club members?

Of course, you could (correctly) argue that the Trump administration has more serious problems, but for a guy who harped on Hillary's private email server being an easier target for hacking, this is nevertheless a good example of how morally bankrupt Trump is.

I was originally going to separate this out from the sleaze, but the more I thought about it, the more I came to the conclusion the Secret Service probably have a decent handle on it. Especially now since it's become a thing.

The Mar-o-lago situation is just one way in which Trump seems to seek financial gains from his Presidency. Regarding worries, do you remember the photo posted by a club member of the poor sod who carries (probably carried, past tense) the nuclear football? And the sensitive negotiations in full view of other club members?

Of course, you could (correctly) argue that the Trump administration has more serious problems, but for a guy who harped on Hillary's private email server being an easier target for hacking, this is nevertheless a good example of how morally bankrupt Trump is.

As I said above, I harped on Hillary. I don't think this is that huge of a deal.

I was originally going to separate this out from the sleaze, but the more I thought about it, the more I came to the conclusion the Secret Service probably have a decent handle on it. Especially now since it's become a thing.

Point is, though, that it shouldn't be a thing in the first place. You don't parade around state affairs for self-eggrandizement (which, IMHO, is what it is).

Originally Posted by subego

I'd be (and am) an order of magnitude more concerned about his phone.

I agree, and I would like to add that both of us could probably add to a list of things which we judge to be worse than the “Winter White House” situation. And, of course, because it is so hard to keep up with the constant trickle of issues that'd be larger scandals in normal White Houses, we barely have time to go in-depth with any of them.

Originally Posted by subego

As I said above, I harped on Hillary. I don't think this is that huge of a deal.

His phone probably is, and if so it's painfully hypocritical.

It's the hypocrisy that really rubs me the wrong way: criticism should come from a place of moral superiority, and while I agree that e. g. the Clinton's insecure email server and Clinton's Wall Street speeches were issues, it was clear that Trump would do worse in every respect. And that includes everything from using an ancient, insecure phone to conducting sensitive state business in public, Pence's use of a private email server for business and Trump appointing at least 6 Wall Street guys to his cabinet and inner circle.

I mean, if the POTUS getting rich using the office in this manner is just 'sleazy' to you, I think we're on different wavelengths. It's clear to me he's spending time being concerned with bringing value to current members by bringing both government and international officials there.

Does it impact us? Not in a way I could quantify, but you seem to be accepting of any degradation of norms because there are bigger 'problems.' I see this as both a red flag that signifies future problems and a loss of basic principle for those who would look the other way because of his party.

I'm not saying you should vote against Trump because of this. I'm saying if you voted for him, you should still have the decency to say, "Yeah, this is ****ed up." I mean, I think that's basic premise of this thread.

I didn't vote for, or support Trump. Should I stop posting in the thread?

That's an honest, and non-confrontational question. There's all kinds of stuff for me to talk about in other threads.

Nah, I like your input. But I guess you shouldn't minimize my point because it doesn't fit your worldview when I'm not addressing it towards you.

Are there bigger problems? Sure. But many of the bigger problems are political in nature – someone's perception is colored by their politics. The way I see it, the mar-a-lago thing isn't one of those subjects where your answer will change depending on whether you think abortion is murder or climate change is real. The lower the stakes, the easier to get honest answers.

I'm trying to scrape up the barest consensus and you're shitting on it.

Everyone who voted for him knows he's a sleazeball. Christ... it's part of his appeal.

I wouldn't say that at all, many think he's just ****ing w/ the MSM because they suck and they (along w/ the DC establishment) deserve it, they also believe that it's largely a coordinated smear campaign, and the media gets caught in enough lies and fake news to feed that perception.

"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr

I wouldn't say that at all, many think he's just ****ing w/ the MSM because they suck and they (along w/ the DC establishment) deserve it, they also believe that it's largely a coordinated smear campaign, and the media gets caught in enough lies and fake news to feed that perception.

Is he ****ing with the media? Or is it the behind the scenes people (Bannon)?I don't see him as having the attention span to run with a coordinated plan of attack. And if it is the behind the scenes people, how can it be a good thing to be playing power from the shadows?

So much muck gets flung around in every direction that once everything smells of sh*t people won't be able to tell at which point they became irretrievably screwed. And if the only way to advance your cause is by this type of method, how good can your cause be?

This space for Hire! Reasonable rates. Reach an audience of literally dozens!

So much muck gets flung around in every direction that once everything smells of sh*t people won't be able to tell at which point they became irretrievably screwed. And if the only way to advance your cause is by this type of method, how good can your cause be?

You don't think we're there already?

Even over here the other day Corbyn declared it was fin for the Scots to get a 2nd referendum. So why not the rest of us? The Scots weren't even lied to during theirs.
Theresa May just accused Nicola Sturgeon of tunnel vision. More hypocrisy. And no-one in the media even notices.

I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....

Even over here the other day Corbyn declared it was fin for the Scots to get a 2nd referendum. So why not the rest of us? The Scots weren't even lied to during theirs.
Theresa May just accused Nicola Sturgeon of tunnel vision. More hypocrisy. And no-one in the media even notices.

I don't think the alt news sites have anywhere near the grip on the UK discussion space as they do in the UK. People here have the BBC and then the other news services too deeply ingrained in their DNA. It's moving in that direction though.

Sturgeon is just acting to represent the Scots. Its a function of devolution. They have a mechanism to do this, we don't. The SNP won overwhelmingly in Scotland and leaving the EU wasn't even a blip on the radar. They also voted solidly to stay, Indyref2 is a natural function of those facts. Sturgeon is pretty ruthlessly exploiting her advantage in this. Her party want independence. They may get it through the backdoor but probably not. I would guess the Scotts will vote to stay again, rather being in the UK than out and in the EU. (Hopefully).

The rest of us not getting a referendum is the same problem as us not having our own parliament. Probably not sustainable in the loooong term but for now it's the reality.

Corbyn needs to get his political sh*t together fast.

This space for Hire! Reasonable rates. Reach an audience of literally dozens!

Is he ****ing with the media? Or is it the behind the scenes people (Bannon)?I don't see him as having the attention span to run with a coordinated plan of attack. And if it is the behind the scenes people, how can it be a good thing to be playing power from the shadows?

I was stating the prevailing opinion. Since I'm one of the few here who actually interacts with Trumpers, I was giving the lowdown on their perceptions.

So much muck gets flung around in every direction that once everything smells of sh*t people won't be able to tell at which point they became irretrievably screwed. And if the only way to advance your cause is by this type of method, how good can your cause be?

It's already been that way for a long time, now however the old establishment isn't going down without a fight, and they'd rather destroy the system rather than give it up.

"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr

I don't think the alt news sites have anywhere near the grip on the UK discussion space as they do in the UK. People here have the BBC and then the other news services too deeply ingrained in their DNA. It's moving in that direction though.

Sturgeon is just acting to represent the Scots. Its a function of devolution. They have a mechanism to do this, we don't. The SNP won overwhelmingly in Scotland and leaving the EU wasn't even a blip on the radar. They also voted solidly to stay, Indyref2 is a natural function of those facts. Sturgeon is pretty ruthlessly exploiting her advantage in this. Her party want independence. They may get it through the backdoor but probably not. I would guess the Scotts will vote to stay again, rather being in the UK than out and in the EU. (Hopefully).

The rest of us not getting a referendum is the same problem as us not having our own parliament. Probably not sustainable in the loooong term but for now it's the reality.

Corbyn needs to get his political sh*t together fast.

As much as I'd like Scotland to stay, I'm getting to the point where I want things to turn out badly over Brexit so I can rub it in the Brexshitters faces. Childish I know but when you're essentially arguing with children its still immensely satisfying.

If they can get out of the UK and stay in the EU, they might well be better off. Funny how May is treating them just like the EU is treating us though eh?

The only site I've seen call her out on the lecture she tried to give Sturgeon about tunnel vision and playing politics (lets not forget the only reason we had a referendum was the Tories playing politics to begin with) is Newsthump. They didn't even have to spice it up to make it funny. Just reported it accurately and pointed out how ridiculous it was. The BBC of course doesn't pass much comment either way.

Corbyn is dead in the water as far as I'm concerned. He was our Bernie Sanders, a decent, honest man who would fight for the little guy and wasn't swanning around in two chauffeur driven Jags or a private jet while he was making such claims. Sadly having planted his flag as far left of the fence the tories are always trying to sit as he could get it, we found him catching a nap on the other side altogether over Brexit.
He was always too far left to win and honesty was his bypass for that but he's arguably an even bigger liar than the rest of them so he's dug his own grave. If he gets anywhere at all it will be for someone else screwing up and him being the only viable alternative. If only we could have established an equal third party.

I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....

To reiterate, Trump accuses Obama of wiretapping, provides no evidence, congressional intel committee comes out that there's no evidence, Spicer puts on a show that it could still have happened by invoking Britain, has to apologize a few hours later.

To reiterate, Trump accuses Obama of wiretapping, provides no evidence, congressional intel committee comes out that there's no evidence, Spicer puts on a show that it could still have happened by invoking Britain, has to apologize a few hours later.

Thisisfine.jpg

Hmmm...

Reading that article, the apology didn't sound particularly formal, and would be one Spicy might deny having occurred.